>I am just wondering about your last thoughts there, Paul. Surely, if this
>person was never bound Paul, the apostle, that is, could have used another
>word - maybe AGAMOS "unmarried" - to try and explain a state of never being
>married.

If Paul's intention was to simply say "unmarried" he could have used AGAMOS,
but if Paul intended to convey "free of the responsibilities of a wife"
then LELUSAI would be the preferable choice.

In context I have always taken that as the reason for his word choice rather
than trying to make "previously married" fit in his arguement.